writer-director / choosing camera equipment

ATP said:

[I checked the archives on this, but there appeared to be very little directly relevant]

I realise that this is a forum for scriptwriting. However, I have noticed that some threads have dealt with the issue of being a writer-director, and starting out in low budget.

I would like to ask the more experienced here if it is relatively 'easy' for you to suggest which camera to purchase for the beginning W-D?

Or, if not a specific model, then factors to be carefully considered before such purchase.

Any reference sites/ links warmly welcome, too.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Depends on your budget.

There's a Sony HD model that a lot of new directors use. It's about 2 grand (sterling), referred to sometimes as a pro-sumer, bottom of the pro specs, top of the consumer range. A writer/director friend of mine started out making shorts with this model. He's since been short listed for the Baftas and won several other awards, so it didn't hold him back. I don't know the actual model name of the camera off-hand, but I'm meeting with him early next week and could get some more info for you.

The Sony is called the FX1. It shoots in high-def and is a great camera. I own one, cost about three grand U.S. But the tapes it shoots on can only be played on an HD DV deck, which is eiether your camera or another $3000 deck. If you use your camera as your editing deck, as most people would, you run the mechanics down very quickly. And then there is the issue of transferring your footage into your computer for editing. You'll probably transfer in as regular (standard) DV anyway, so the HD is suddenly not the important. You might want to look at a Sony VX2000 instead, which should set you back around two grand. If you will be shooting a lot of daylight close-ups (i.e., not landscapes and not at night), you could use a 3-chip small DV camcroder made by Sony which costs around $1300, but you'll definitely need a good microphone since its mic is tinny or metallic-sounding.

Many people will tel you the best prosumer film look is the Panasonic 100B.

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webap...14571&modelNo=AG-DVX100B&surfModel=AG-DVX100B

I don't personally agree, and I would go with the FX1, but for too many reasons to get into here.

The best way to do your research on this is by checking out the forums at Creative Cow, or the forums at Withoutabox. Google either of those and you'll soon be reading up on the latest in video gear.

But here's a good outline to keep in mind:

Camera & accessories will cost $3000
Microphones & accessories another $500-700
Computer with RAM $1800 to $3000

None of this stuff is likely to pay for itself, but you can make a very good movie with this sort of investment.

Here's the most important advice:

Check out what you can do with low-budget equipment. The best-known producers of budget cinema are European filmmakers like the Dogma group in Denmark or the Dardennes brothers in Belgium. The best low-budget American productions tend to be docs, but I'll give you the names of some features to check out as well. See these movies, all of which are terrific and all of which Marty Scorsese could not make if his life depended on it:

L'Enfant 2005 (Belgian)
The Inheritance (2005) (video, Danish)
New York Doll (2006)
Meeting People is Easy (Gerald Gee) (around 2001)
Dig (USA, 2005)
The Celebration (Danish) (around 2002)
Laws of Gravity (USA, made on film for $32K, phenomenal)
Memories of a Killer (Belgian)
Japon (Mexico, around 2002)(brilliant beyond belief)
November (USA 2004, video)
9Songs (Britain, Michale Winterbottom 2005 video)

The American marketplace is about to suffer a sort of deathblow when a movie made for $2000 is the next Sideways and brings in $60-million. The Hollywood fatcats are sweating bullets or getting fired like never before in Tinseltown's history. It might as well be YOU who makes that killer movie. Steven Soderbergh shot "Bubble" for less than $2-million using video, and it was produced by Mark Cuban, and even that was seen as being too costly given the final result. The Blair Witch Project was way ahead of its time (and a piece of junk cinematically), and people with much more talent will be using that format more effectively very soon -- by next summer. You can see the change already on the shelves at Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. Tons of new, unknown movies shot cheaply on video. Again, might as well be YOU.

There you go, ATP. I won't have to ask him now. Seanie's got it well covered.

You mean DV right? Because otherwise my suggestion would be buy an old Arri Super 16 and shoot with Kodak Vision 2. I love Vision 2. Love it so bad. (Hustle and Flow was shot on this film stock).

Everyone in the world seems to use that Panasonic camera. I live and work in Hollywood and literally everyone (who can't afford better) uses that Panasonic camera. It's prosumer and it's alright. But I generally prefer Sonys. I think the color on those Panasonics is pretty blah and Sony does much better (except with Red, but there's problems with any DV and red). I think good color helps hide some of the problems in DV blow up to film which makes your whole movie look shades of brown and gray but this is all very personal preference.

As Seanie indicated there's all kinds of monetary complications with HD. It's not the camera that's the problem, although it's not like HDV cameras are cheap or anything, but you are going to have all kinds of problems in post. You're almost certainly going to end up in 29.97 DV anyway. But if you are making something fairly professional then sure, go with HD, do a low res offline and go to a professional place to do your HD online properly.

If you get that Panasonic or any 24P camera make sure you read up on it. Most people with that Panasonic camera don't know their settings and are not always actually shooting in 24P (and then they stick it into inadequate editing software or edit with the wrong settings and defeat the purpose of shooting 24P).

I'd say read up on what you want and what you can afford. There are plenty of things in regular DV that do very well. But don't be deceived either. 28 Days Later was shot on a Canon XL1 but went through sooooo much post production processing that you shouldn't assume that's what your movie is going to look like if you shoot with that camera.

And Creative Cow is a great resource. There's a lot of info out there if you look for it. And I'm certainly not a camera person. I work as an editor. I try to deal with cameras as little as possible. The HD/DV technology is changing so quickly these days it's a bit difficult to keep up. The stuff that was the top of the line when I was in film school a few years ago is entirely obsolete now.

Actually, you are a lot better off not buying a camera and using that money to hire a DP who has their own camera. Or renting a camera. When you rent then it means you don't have to worry about camera upkeep and can get the right camera for your film's needs. A lot of people I know bought some prosumer Sonys a few years back, and despite Sony being a great brand name, after about 3 or 4 years of pretty consistent use the cameras were pretty much done. If you're a writer/director and not a cinematographer then why even bother buying something that's going to just end up contraining you in the end? A friend of mine bought an HDV camera a few years back and was going to shoot his movie on it but due to the costs involved found it cheaper to shoot it in Super 16, which is what he did. It was also better, aesthically, for his movies and his locations. If he had shot with the camera he owned he would have been very constrained by it.

seanie blue said:

TThe American marketplace is about to suffer a sort of deathblow when a movie made for $2000 is the next Sideways and brings in $60-million. The Hollywood fatcats are sweating bullets or getting fired like never before in Tinseltown's history. It might as well be YOU who makes that killer movie. Steven Soderbergh shot "Bubble" for less than $2-million using video, and it was produced by Mark Cuban, and even that was seen as being too costly given the final result. The Blair Witch Project was way ahead of its time (and a piece of junk cinematically), and people with much more talent will be using that format more effectively very soon -- by next summer. You can see the change already on the shelves at Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. Tons of new, unknown movies shot cheaply on video. Again, might as well be YOU.

Click to expand...

Very interesting thoughts here. I don't think that Hollywood is going anywhere but I think that an underground market is going to spring up like you describe. America is always going to get wet about Stars so the big budget A list films wont be going the way of silient film. I never really thought about super low budget getting big and you may be right. The catalyst is going to be internet distribution, once someone gets it right. But Hollywood will adapt.

On the camera issue: I wouldn't depend on any camera lasting more than 2 years. If they do, great, you're lucky. I took an FX1 to Iceland for ONE shoot and it was trashed by a combination of wind, volcanic ash, blizzards, moisture condensation from constant temp changes, and, oh yes, water. Still worth it, if somebody pays. And you'd be better off hiring the DP, of course, except DPs have a good way of making sure you don't learn anything. Failure is a great teacher. Your first movie will likely be a wreck, so why not learn every hard lesson the right way? If you have the money. And Super 16 is definitely superior to video, but you have to know a little bit of what you're doing. The cost of developing film is not forgiving. Renting a DP with a Super 16 is probably the wisest approach, but then again you will have to be super organized yourself; shooting film efficiently is much much harder than dealing with video and its cheap stock. ($5 to $13 per hour of videotape)

And on Hollywood adapting: I agree that it will. The stars it finds will come from the super-cheap marketplace, in the same way that some movie stars came from TV in the '50s and '60s, like Steve McQueen out of a TV western series. Already, Netflix has a technology for renting out "indie-indie" features over the web which play for 24 hours; internet distribution is on its way fo feature movies, which probably means even more fractured niche viewing than we have now. But I don't think the issue really is met head-on until a DV movie shot for two grand brings in $60-million. Can that happen? We'll see.

I dont no much about this because I am just starting out but if you want to check out some of the higher end Canon models. There great. The crew of 28 days later actually used Canon Digital Cameras to shoot 28 days later.

peppers said:

I dont no much about this because I am just starting out but if you want to check out some of the higher end Canon models. There great. The crew of 28 days later actually used Canon Digital Cameras to shoot 28 days later.

Click to expand...

Not to knock your suggestion, some people really like their Canons and they're certainly good for certain things but I mention above though that 28 Days Later did so much post production work on that footage that you should never expect what you shoot on your Canon to look like that. There was a very very long article in....American Cinematographer? Some magazine about every process they used to make the film look decent. It defeated the purpose of shooting on DV entirely. Canons are pretty good, but it's deceptive to look at 28 Days Later and think your movie will look like that.

But yeah ATP, like Seanie indicated, it depends what you are making the film for. Is it for you to learn? Or do you hope for it to get you some attention? That will make a big difference about what you use to shoot it.

ATP said:

Hmmm...there appears much to consider, and not entirely as I thought, just the brand and type of camera.

Is it a case of two different things here - determining what your goal is in terms of cameras (beginner vs. prosumer) vs. as the 28 Days example seems to indicate, the necessity for the professional to properly understand the technical limitations of his equipment, and how he ought to prepare for this?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of great books out there on this topic.

I recommend "Digital Moviemaking" by Scott Billups as a starting point. It's a very in-depth introduction to the nuts and bolts of DV. It'll get you up to speed on the specs and abbreviations and concepts you'll need to know to pick equipment.

I'd definitely recommend figuring out your production system before you start buying anything. You want to make sure everything will work together for the best possible image.

As for my camera, it's out of date now, but I still love the hell out of my Canon XL-1S. And don't get me started on my Sennheiser MKH-416 mike.

http://dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

Looks like the Panasonic gets the best rating for uses like low budget filmmaking w/ a film look.

The most current model is the Panasonic AG-DVX100B Mini-DV Cinema Camcorder ( the A has been discontinued according to Amazon)

A related question:

I recently read up on a standalone Turnkey non-linear editing machine, but it wasn't specific as to say if it was for film or digital. I'm guessing digital, but does anyone know for sure?

Dibship said:

A related question:

I recently read up on a standalone Turnkey non-linear editing machine, but it wasn't specific as to say if it was for film or digital. I'm guessing digital, but does anyone know for sure?

Click to expand...

Digital. Even if you're working in film, generally you have a time-coded tape made and use that for rough cut editing.

Back in the film-only days, they'd make a garbage print to rough with, then use that as a guide to make the real cuts in the real print.

Now, you use a digital version of the film to screw around with and your editing program gives you an Edit Decision List, which you give to the lab for a final edit of the expensive print.

There are many great cameras frpm which to choose. Anyone who respnds here is likely to tout the camera he/she owns. Why not?

Sony FX-1 or VX2000
Canon XL2, XHa1 or XHg1
Panasonic DVX100b

All good. Check them out. The big advantage for Canon is the interchangeable lenses if you are going for a filmic look, but only the XL2 has true 24p if that is important to you.

You may want to go HD at this point in time.

Good info, Seanie Blue. I'll have to look up the films I haven't seen and bookmark those forums.

Actually, you are a lot better off not buying a camera and using that money to hire a DP who has their own camera. Or renting a camera. When you rent then it means you don't have to worry about camera upkeep and can get the right camera for your film's needs. A lot of people I know bought some prosumer Sonys a few years back, and despite Sony being a great brand name, after about 3 or 4 years of pretty consistent use the cameras were pretty much done. If you're a writer/director and not a cinematographer then why even bother buying something that's going to just end up contraining you in the end? A friend of mine bought an HDV camera a few years back and was going to shoot his movie on it but due to the costs involved found it cheaper to shoot it in Super 16, which is what he did. It was also better, aesthically, for his movies and his locations. If he had shot with the camera he owned he would have been very constrained by it.

Click to expand...

zeprosnepsid, I'm in complete agreement w/ this, but I've run into people who insist on buying, because the cameras are relatively cheap. Why sink money into something that may well be obsolete in a few years, or not used enough to justify the expense. Once you've spent big money (from a starving filmmakers POV), you're pretty much obligated to use that camera just to get your money's worth.

I'm all for keeping my options open. Super 16 on one project, Pixelvision on another. I think I might even shoot a super 8 short for You Tube.